Because statist talking points make for unintentional comedy! A shameless ripoff of "Cyanide and Happiness" updated every Sunday.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

#055: Hell

Søren Espersen, a senior Danish People’s Party spokesman and the head of parliament's Foreign Policy Committee, said on Sunday that the US-led military campaign against Isis, which Denmark is participating in, should bomb civilian targets...“We aren’t bombing spots where there are civilians, but we need to start doing so. IS hides behind women and children in villages and towns and they know that we are gentlemen won’t bomb them. That needs to end,” he told TV2. When asked if that meant he thought the West should bomb women and children, Espersen said “yes, of course”.

Those were the words of Søren Espersen, a Danish foreign affairs spokesperson, in response to the Paris terrorist attacks. I’m not sure which is more worrying: than an actual elected official considers it morally acceptable to kill women and children to win a war, or that our current crop of presidential candidates and even the president himself seem to agree with this sentiment, as was apparent with the Kunduz hospital bombing.

I don’t think I should have to explain why it’s morally reprehensible to kill women and children, but as it sadly appears that I have to, allow me to present the following analogy:

Imagine that a convicted murderer breaks out of death row. He is chased by the police into a gas station, where he holds the employees and customers hostage. The police have the place surrounded, but they do not enter, as the fugitive threatens to kill the hostages if the cops do so. One of the officers suggests setting the building on fire and burning the fugitive alive. After all, he’s a death row inmate and was going to die anyway. However, this fire would also kill the hostages inside. Knowing this, would it be moral for the cops to move forward with this plan and burn the fugitive and hostages alive?

If you are a decent human being, the obvious answer would be “no.” Most Americans would agree that it would be wrong for cops to kill innocent civilians in order to stop a criminal. So why would it otherwise be acceptable for soldiers to do the exact same thing to stop militants overseas? Why are Americans so forgiving of such blatant war crimes?

And yes, I am insisting that the Kunduz hospital bombing was a war crime. The Geneva Conventions forbids military attacks against hospitals and any other “zone established to shelter the wounded, the sick and civilians from the effects of hostilities.” Such violations are war crimes. Therefore, the hospital bombing was a war crime.

And please spare me, military and Obama apologists, the excuse that the bombing was “an accident.” It. Was. Not. The US military analysts knew that they were targeting a hospital filled with sick and dying patients. In the words of Mr. Enter, what they were doing was wrong, they knew it was wrong, but they were going to do it anyway. What do we call such people, again? Oh yes. Psychopaths!

How ironic is it that such a blatant war crime was committed under the leadership of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president? (And no, I don't care if Obama apologized. Obama is a Noble Liar!) Of course, this isn’t the first time that the prize was held by someone who didn’t deserve it: